The
State brings this timely interlocutory appeal[1] to seek a reversal of the trial
court's order granting Angie Lynn Parkman's
("Defendant") motion to suppress the seizure and
search of her "person, home, purse, and cell
phones" ("the suppression motion") after an
evidentiary hearing.[2] The police
searched Defendant's residence based on information
suggesting that she was involved in illegal drug activity.
Because the trial court did not decide whether Defendant had
consented to the search, we reverse its ruling and remand the
matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Applicable
Principles of Review and Governing Law

The
State must present evidence that convinces the trial court,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that a motion to suppress
should be denied. State v. Grayson, 336 S.W.3d 138,
142 (Mo. banc 2011). "The circuit court's duty is
'to resolve any issues of credibility before ruling on
the motion to suppress and to base its ruling on the facts as
it perceived them to be true.'" State v.
Nebbitt, 455 S.W.3d 79, 86 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (quoting
Statev. Sanders, 16 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Mo.
App.W.D.2000)).

A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress will be
reversed only if it is clearly erroneous. State v.
Sund, 215 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Mo. banc 2007). This Court
defers to the trial court's factual findings and
credibility determinations and considers all evidence and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
trial court's ruling. Id. Whether conduct
violates the Fourth Amendment is a question of law, which is
reviewed de novo.

The
suppression motion asserted that the search of
Defendant's home and subsequent seizure of evidence
"was without probable cause, without a warrant, and
without consent." At the beginning of the evidentiary
hearing, defense counsel agreed with the prosecutor's
statement that Defendant was subject to a special condition
of probation at the time of the search that she "shall
consent to a search of [her] person, any car [s]he's
driving or a passenger in, or [her] place of residence at any
time [s]he's requested to do so by any law enforcement
officer or probation officer" ("the special
condition").[3]

Defense
counsel maintained that despite the special condition, the
search "was an improper search resulting in an improper
seizure, because [Defendant] did not adequately give
consent." In support of that position, defense counsel
argued both that there had been "a show of force from
law enforcement, and [Defendant] has an option of violating
her probation or she has an option of taking on a new case,
perhaps."

Lake
Area Narcotics Enforcement Group Task Force Officer B.A.
Pratt testified that he went to Defendant's home on June
22, 2015 because he "had received information that
[Defendant] was involved in the distribution and use of
opiates and other controlled substances." Officer Pratt
could not "really give . . . specific sources" for
the information, and he could not remember whether the
sources were "law enforcement officers, concerned
citizens, " or something else. At the time he went to
Defendant's house, Officer Pratt knew that Defendant was
on probation as a result of a previous "undercover
narcotics investigation[.]"

Another
officer, Missouri State Highway Patrol Sergeant Wertz,
[4] testified on behalf of the State, and
Defendant also testified. The accounts provided by the
officers conflicted with Defendant's testimony regarding
whether she consented to a search. Defendant's testimony
contradicted the officers' testimony about whether
Officer Pratt used profanity or yelled when speaking with
Defendant, and she also testified that she was unaware of the
special condition until the officers told her about it on the
day of the search.

Officer
Pratt's testimony was that Defendant "answered the
door and stepped outside on the front porch." Officer
Pratt identified himself, and Defendant confirmed that she
was on probation. Officer Pratt asked for consent to search,
and Defendant "said, I'll let you search. Can I put
my kids down in their bedroom downstairs?" Officer Pratt
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.